MySpace Blogs

NEW!! Read the 1st Three Chapters
 

Timeline

Court Hearings
2002
2003
2004
2005                                       2007                                    

Themes

Contact Us

Other                             

Pictures
Links
Articles
Other Audio

The Role of Psychology in Divorce

The Role of Psychology in Divorce

Stephen A. Avery

           I managed to identify fifteen mental health professionals involved in our divorce and related activities. The list included at least two psychiatrists, one medical doctor practicing as a psychiatrist, two psychologists, and numerous other master level therapists.

In a society where the majority of citizens still have never sought the services of the mental health profession, I claim my varied and extensive experience makes me a consumer expert, especially as the profession works within the divorce field. I put forth this experience as an aid to others undergoing a painful divorce involving children and psychology.

In most states, the mental health profession may assume two primary roles during the divorce process – Counseling and Evaluation.

Counseling

Typically, one, or both, of the parent’s places the children in counseling to deal with the ‘trauma’ of the divorce. I believe parents do this for two common reasons. First, placing the kids in counseling is evolving into a social norm. It is a common question asked those going through a divorce – “Who are the kid’s seeing”.

My own thinking on this social norm is evolving after the events of the last three years, especially with the insight provided by a recent work One Nation Under Therapy. But, I followed the peer pressure model. When the children’s mother was arrested for the attempted hiring of a hit man to kill me, I rushed the children back into counseling.

The counselor, a psychologist, called me back to his office after the children’s second session and informed me that he was discharging the children. Counseling, he informed me, was of little benefit to my children. They knew their mother better then anyone else and were the best equipped people to deal with her problems.

The second common motivation is the need for a neutral third party, some one the children can talk to without getting involved in the conflict between the parents. A great example of this type of counseling is the Banana Splits program offered by the Albuquerque Public Schools. This excellent six week program puts a group of children experiencing divorce together in a supervised peer environment to talk and think about some of the issues they are facing. I actively sought this type of program for several months before finding it across the street at my children’s elementary school. Both of my two youngest children are positive about this program.

Neutrality is critical. My children will attest to my efforts to always be positive about their mother, even during the worst of times. But, I drew the line on their stepfather. While my long experience with their mother afforded me the opportunity to bring up positive memories about her, their stepfather could not so benefit. Subsequent events did not help create a positive image. So, I encouraged the children to discuss their stepfather with their counselor.  

One of the critical mistakes I made during the divorce was the assumption of neutrality by a licensed mental health professional that my wife picked. As the second known psychologist testified in court, my ex seemed to enjoy the role of a victim. Within a few weeks of filing for divorce, she applied for and received welfare, Medicaid, and food stamps although she was receiving over five thousand dollars a month in support from the community.

She also played the victim card with several women’s groups and it was through one of these women’s groups that my ex met the children’s first counselor. This counselor, fired by the children’s Guardian ad Litem, went on to become my ex’s therapist.

My hands were not completely clean. My main motivation for seeking counseling for the children was to document the abuse stories my children were now telling about their mother.

It was unnecessary to order my wife into counseling as she was now a heavy consumer of the mental health services, but I was ordered into counseling about six months into my divorce.

The reasons were clear and simple. First, as the mental health issues associated with my wife of fifteen years became clear to the Court, the Guardian ad Litem, State Protective Services, and others a natural question arose in their mind – What about him? Putting me into counseling was one of the methods employed to provide some assurance that they were not turning the kids over to a lunatic with better acting skills.

Second, as an office pool indicated, many people believed that it was only a matter of time until I cracked. The attempt on my life was one chapter in a series of events that took place over the years. There was constant speculation on how I was really holding up. Again, this relates back to point one but I believe there was a sincere interest on the part of the Court, the Guardian, and my attorney to provide for my health.

My counselor was a genuine wonderful human being that failed to help me in any other way then provide others with some assurance on how I was coping. To be fair, the complications surrounding our story required a great deal of explanation to a stranger new to the story. But really, what was he going to do for me other then listen. There was no way for him to help. My family filled that role. The counselor was paid to make me look good.

Lessons Learned from Counseling

Do not rush into counseling for the children. Eventually, all divorces end, or at least die down, and someone must raise the children. This is always a parent’s first responsibility. I do recommend focused short term programs such as the aforementioned Banana Splits. This type of program allows children to realize that their situation, unfortunately, is not unique and places an emphasis on adjustment.

Second, educate yourself about the counseling and the counselor. Mental health is a young science with a wide range of approaches not all of which are appropriate for your children or situation. The range is wider then most imagine, from burning incense to shock therapy.

This is a fine line; you need to know how the therapy is being conducted and not necessarily the specifics. The children need their privacy secured and every therapist treats this issue differently and often inconsistently.

Remember, you are the parent. It does not matter what the court, guardian, or therapist says or does, you must take responsibility for your children’s health. If the therapist does not recognize this, find another therapist. If the ex fights about this, go to court. Your children are provided only one childhood.

As part of this management, make sure your ex is either involved or fully informed. This places the children first.

Evaluation

The other typical role of psychology in divorce is a report recommending custody after an evaluation of the family. This evaluation is conducted by a licensed psychologist. In New Mexico, the court appoints an evaluator, paid for by the parties, that works for the judge. In many other states, each side hires their own evaluator and the judge hears from each ‘expert’.

In Albuquerque, the word among the professional divorce community is that if you want the kids to go with mom Dr. 1 should do the evaluation, for dad, go with Dr. 2.

After I argued about what was best for the children with our first judge, she recommended Dr. 1. After the parties came to know us a little bit better, the Guardian Ad Litem recommended Dr. 2.

As discussed about counseling, each evaluator operates differently. At least three different sources reported Dr. 1‘s reliance on current presentation and testing. In other words, Dr. 1’s decision came out of interviews with the parties and the results of their psychological testing. He does not take a ‘history’ and does not review any school, medical, counseling, or other data. Perhaps this is why Dr. 1 is known for his rapid turnaround.

Dr. 2 takes these additional steps.

But let us be clear, when a custody evaluator is involved, they will decide the fate of the children with no more that thirty hours of work on the case. They are the ‘experts’ and perfectly able to make these long term decisions in this amount of time.

Right.

In our case, Dr. 2’s initial report recommended that most custody issues reside with me, that our oldest child live with me 24/7 and that the two younger children spend nine days with me and then five with their mother. The plan was adopted by the Court on November 15th. One December 4th, State Protective services removed the two younger children from their mother’s care and they have not spent a night with her since.

His second evaluation, some six months, later did little more then sign off on the actions taken by the State and the Court previously. The children lived with dad. Mom could hope for gradually increased supervised visitation.

This second plan was set aside by the Court only when my ex was arrested for planning my murder. The Court awarded, for a second time, full custody to me and no visitation for mom.

I am sure ours was just a most difficult case and that the evaluators usually get paid six to seven thousand dollars to work on easier cases.  

As I read the reports and listen to the testimony I am surprised about how much the doctor stated he did not know. Again and again he stated that he did not know or understand what was going on and yet he was willing to make life long decisions for our family.

Darkness and lack of knowledge seem critical to the evaluation process. Not only is the doctor unaware of what is going on, but the process insured that no one else does either. The doctor tests you, interviews you, sends questionnaires out, interviews others, and reviews records over several weeks.

There is no feedback. I did not see the recommendations for the first evaluation until an hour before the hearing. The Court allowed a ten minute recess for review of the second evaluation before the doctor testified and the Court adopted the recommendations.

Does this process seem fair or even equitable to the parents? It is rare when the Court does not adopt the evaluator’s recommendations. The evaluator’s control of the family’s future is near complete. Time and time again, I remember the judge telling me that she was not going to listen to me about what was best for the children; she was going to listen to the experts. The system is set up so that the court will listen to a psychologist spending only a few hours with the children as opposed to parent spending a lifetime with these same children.

In the medical arena, there exist safeguards to protect people from this type of extensive control.

As noted above, no such standards exist within the evaluator’s work. Dr 1 does not believe a complete history is necessary, Dr. 2 does.

No such peer review program exists for evaluators.

Conclusion – Evaluators work under standards they develop themselves, without any form of peer review to assess the quality of their work, and are immune to most consequences for any mistakes they make or the poor quality of their work.

There exist the possibility for fundamental moral differences between the parent and the evaluator. I am not referring to view such as atheist versus believer or Catholic versus Protestant. As usual, the differences are more subtle.

For example, Dr. 2 had no problem splitting the kids up in the first evaluation: the oldest with me 24/7 and the younger two nine out of fourteen days. A version of this arrangement existed before the evaluation. The Guardian Ad Litem removed the oldest child from mom’s house and suspended all visitations between him and his mother.

The Guardian and I spent hours discussing this move before it occurred. Most of our fears proved well founded. The middle child, ten years old, assumed the responsibility for raising her six year old brother as they became virtual abandoned prisoners in their own home. The middle child also became the object for mom’s anger, a role previously filled by her older brother.

            Conversely, the oldest child, on top of the joy arising out of being removed from his mother’s anger, found himself an only child for most of the time and loved it.

I honestly considered this situation as destructive to the family and temporary at best. I considered dividing the children as an evil. This general belief was especially true in my family because the three children were survivors of their mother’s abuse, a bond not found in other families.

But Dr. 2 had no problem splitting the kids. He saw nothing unnatural about this. Fortunately, his recommendations proved worthless as they were never implemented and all three children moved in with me.

The issue arose again during the second evaluation as the evaluator decided to separate the children during his evaluation. He would accompany the two youngest children on a supervised visit with their mother and conduct a separate visit with the oldest child alone.

My position was a little different the second time. I was confident that no one was going to give the children back to their mother. So, I refused to split the children. The evaluator insisted. I said no. The Guardian Ad Litem became involved, and as much as I love the man, he took the evaluator’s side. I refused. I made it clear that this would go to the judge, the court of appeals and on up the ladder. I was not going to allow the children to be split up again.

The evaluator backed off based on the discovery of some lie my ex-wife told him. Which lie I do not recall.

Despite the evaluator, my ex, and even my oldest son giving up on a relationship between the two, I did not. Once I had some control over my family, I included our oldest son in supervised visitation. When it interfered with the youngest two’s relationship with their mother, I segregated him or suspended the visits.

After several months, their relationship improved to the point where, without any evaluator, guardian, or judge, I decided that the two could have the first unsupervised visit in the family in over fifteen months.

Of course my ex-wife had plotted for my murder to occur two days before the planned unsupervised visit.

Lessons learned from Evaluations

I was able to influence and change an evaluation only because I operated from a unique position of strength. Everyone knew my ex-wife’s problems and despite attempts to do so, no one had been able to question my parenting skills.

The evaluator labeled me as dominating, aggressive, and determined to get my way. I can only conclude that I was expected to roll over and heel to whatever the expert evaluator decided was best for my family after a few hours of work. Sorry Dr. 2.

But again, I was in a unique position of strength.

Evaluators are part of the divorce industry. This means that your attorney will have to deal with this evaluator again and again as they practice divorce law. You, most likely, are a one time customer. For this reason, you can not rely on your attorney to aggressively attack a poor evaluation.

Additionally, the Court system decided long before you or I came into the picture that the evaluation process would work this way. If the evaluator’s recommendations fall apart under questioning, what would the Court do with the kids? Obviously, this is not in the Court’s interest. As the children’s Guardian Ad Litem, now a family court judge, remarked time and time again, the system is horrible but it is the only one we have.

In many cases the system does work, most parents seeking divorce are good people temporarily focused on their anger and the process, as dangerous and ridiculous as it is, helps them work through the crisis.

The serious flaws within the current system of custody evaluations must be addressed at the system level

Standards

First and foremost we need to develop a standard for custody evaluations. I believe the primary input for this rests with the family court judges. Even the two newest members of the bench daily witness events that provide experience into this area beyond any of us. They should sit down and develop a list of what they believe should occur during an evaluation: psychological testing, histories, surveys, interviews etc...

And there are plenty or resources available for the judges to review. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry developed extensive standards and guidelines. These include the following areas of assessment:

The American Psychological Association also published guidelines that include the following stated objectives:

I am not sure what is meant by the ‘best psychological interests’ but it is a start.

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts take the following as necessary objectives and areas of evaluation:

Despite the fact that New Mexico’s cost for an evaluation is over twice the national average, I see few of these standards in place and I see no system for enforcement.

Peer Review

Once standards are in place, Custody evaluators and evaluations must be subject to the same type of peer review as other professions and should be self-funded as other peer review programs. With standards in place, the Court and licensing boards can establish regular peer review requirements along with continuing education.

Final Thoughts

Back off a little bit and let us approach the subject again.

At best psychology is a young science, akin to medicine a hundred and fifty years ago.

When you visit a medical doctor, not a psychiatrist, and present a problem, the doctor really has very little choice about what she will do. There are strong standards of care that hold physicians accountable. Your arm hurts, the limb is examined, x-rays are ordered, and steps are taken accordingly.

Psychology is not there yet and anyone that argues otherwise is lying. This does not mean that intentions are bad or that successful psychological intervention does not occur. What it does mean is that psychology can often not provide answers or solutions.

And the mental health profession continues to move in directions that make obtaining true professional status more difficult. A professional doctor is a graduate of both college and medical school. A lawyer is a graduate of college and law school. In most states, my own profession, the CPA, requires a degree, a total of 150 hours of college, passing an exam that typically only 1 out of 20 pass the first time.

While these professions raised standards, the mental health profession has expanded standards. Until the 1960s, only MDs and PhDs were recognized as mental health professionals. In the 1960’s a master level of professional licensure was recognized, LISW (Licensed Independent Social Worker). The state of New Mexico now recognizes six master level counseling and therapy licenses to include art therapy.

So, it takes less college to be a mental health professional as opposed to the other professions that increased their academic requirements.

To give credit to the profession, these same points are debated and argued daily. Along with the growing suspicion that many ‘cures’ originate with the patient, at least with the less serious mental health disorders. Again, I refer to the excellent recent work by a psychiatrist and psychologist titled One Nation Under Therapy.

The Court labels mental health practitioners as professional because the Courts have no choice. The Courts desperately requires professionals to assume and full fill the roles previously undertaken by priests, pastors, ward bosses and others of a long gone era.

Parents should tread carefully.